Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 February 6

See also Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#About the shortcuts. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a single page does not need a dozen shortcuts. The common one is ILIKEIT, most of these mean basically the same, and some of them aren't even particularly short. >Radiant< 15:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I created
  Addhoc 15:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Surprisingly, the obvious shortcut WP:AVOID is not taken :) >Radiant< 15:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess
      Addhoc 15:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep all except
  WP:ITSFUNNY after seeing a few redlinks to it, actually. I do not agree that the presence of shortcuts encourages editors to make terse, low-content AfD comments; rather, they simply make wikilinks easier to create. Furthermore, I do not agree that we should apply different standards to redirects that are in common use and ones that are not. - Chardish 15:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I think more shortcuts are just going to lead to more confusion in the long run, especially when so many point to the same thing. I would suggest that something more descriptive than WP:AADD be created as a pointer to the main essay, because I think people misunderstand what the main essay is about. ColourBurst 16:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, several of these references predate both the essay and the redirects. They are there because they are needed to contrast, for example,
  WP:NOR (policy). We explain to people why their "keep" arguments, even if more numerous than the delete arguments, fail to persuade in deletion debates. Redirects are cheap. What's important is the essay, which we need to watch to ensure that it does not cause the problems identified above. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep A few people's indescretions over their use of the link in an offensive context (i.e., by itself with no explanation) should not negate the tongue-in-cheek purpose behind the shortcut's creation and common usage. Flakeloaf 17:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep BUT I have a major qualm in that these redirects point below the part where the article explains that it is an essay, not guidelines. While quick hit redirects to policy or guidelines make AfD livable, can we look for consensus (or lack thereof) on the guidelines before we decide whether the redirects are useful? Oh, and rename WP:SCORTCHEDEARTH, maybe WP:AoN or WP:ALL or WP:NOTHING.--144.71.77.200 19:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, wasnt logged in, that comment is mine.--CastAStone|^(talk) 19:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems that this is just favoring older, more established shortcuts to the essay's subsection over recently created shortcuts to the essay's other subsections. --Farix (Talk) 20:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Rename. My experience with them has been that they're used against the spirit of
  WP:BITE. Indiscriminate use of them overlook the fact that Arguments to Avoid is an essay not policy nor a guideline. They only add to AfD confusion and rancor. Tongue-in-cheek intention is irrelevant because of their current negative effect on AfD's. Favoring older over newer redirects is irrelevant because this is about the quality of the redirects not their age. Perhaps many of you have been in so many AfD debates that you've forgotten how intimidating and frustrating it can be to be faced with a half dozen cites to what appear at first to be different policies, but really just point to sections of the same essay. Delete all and just have WP:AVOID pointing to the main essay, not sections. Wl219 22:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment It could be argued that those who can't distinguish between policy, guideline and essays shouldn't be participating in AfD discussions in the first place should learn more about the distinction before drawing conclusions about what they read in an AfD discussion. Flakeloaf 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply You may be right, but do you really see it happening? =P Wl219 23:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.
  WP:ILIKEIT is overused, and used badly sometimes. I'm not sure that these redirects, being little used, are not the problem, or that deleting shortcuts that are widely used will achieve anything more than make the aggressive rebutter of "keep" opinions try to remember and type longer strings. In other words, they are useful to those people who like them. :grin: So I have no opinion as of yet as to whether these redirects deserve deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön 23:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment While some of the arguments in this essay are misused sometimes, it seems like that stems from a misinterpretation of the essay content itself rather than a problem with the shortcuts. While Wikipedians need to understand that these are arguments to avoid, not invalid arguments, I don't think that has anything to do with whether these shortcuts should be kept or not. If I want to reference this page, I'll do it, shortcuts or not: and the lack of the shortcuts would be more of an annoyance than a discouragement. - Chardish 17:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Guy and Flake although I do share some of Chardish's concern about
  WP:SCORCHEDEARTH. JoshuaZ 23:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Guy. Guettarda 02:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the reason I say this is because I've noticed more than one person using the shortcut
  WP:ILIKEIT and trying to make out it says things it doesn't. It's unnecessarily divisive, makes it look like people are citing policy (which can confuse newbies and even some more experienced editors) and ultimately stifles reasoned debate. It stifles reasoned debate because people just use a stupid shortcut in place of their reasoning. Most frustrating, I must tell you! It certainly turns AFD into more of a battleground than it should be. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I agree with Ta Bu Shi Da Yu. These redirects are frequently used by people who haven't even read the essay, and try to stuff all opposing arguments under the carpet by labelling them "WP:ILIKEIT" or something similar. The practise of linking to this essay by means of these redirects has been damaging to AFD, and the practise of doing so should be stopped. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a case in point: I got quite annoyed at
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations with people who were trying to say that the entire "keep" argument was based on ILIKEIT. There were plenty of arguments pointing out that the items were verifiable, and that it was a significant part in the coverage of the airlines' business models. The introduction of ILIKEIT, and at the end a "IWORKEDHARDONITANDNOWIMGOINGTOLEAVEYOUDELETIONISTB*ST*TD", from the people arguing for "deletion" served only to inflame the discussion and insult the people who argued for keeping. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep, but rename SCORCHEDEARTH. Redirects are cheap, memorable, and convenient. If the redirects are being used to present strawmen that is for the individual debates to resolve. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 14:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all except SCORCHEDEATH which is potentially inflammatory and easy to misread (as some kind of death). Lack of use is a quite reason to delete redirects. They're cheap and might be useful shortcuts even if not used on pages. Eluchil404 16:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We all live on planet Eath. Flakeloaf 00:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the problem isn't existence, it's possibly bad usage. Rather than citing these as fact (or even saying "
  Gracenotes^T § 22:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]